• Chriskmee@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, that’s one way to look at it. I looked at it as only a couple percent higher death rate than the flu. Either way, a little less than 2x is way better than like 5x worse.

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Obviously it’s better than before, but it’s also worth keeping in mind these deaths are in addition to the flu.

        Also, there are good and bad flu seasons. I see no reason for COVID to not be the same.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Even if we pedantically accept that ‘almost double’ is really ‘just a few percent higher’ while we’re looking at a single digit likelihood, ‘just a few percent more’ than for the flu is a lot more people in overall numbers with something that spreads far quicker than the flu. We could get the death rate of Covid down to ½ the rate for the flu but if infections are more than double (this is just an example, I don’t know the actual stats on this one), it still means Covid would be more deadly. Unless I’m missing something obvious.

          • holland
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            COVID is basically a year round disease where flu is seasonal. So yeah it’s gonna produce about an order of magnitude more death with just a few percent higher death rate.

            • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              That’s how I understood it, too. Turns out it’s a difficult thing to comprehend, though.